information technology and administrative reform...tion technology (it) in business organiza-tions...

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea GroupInc. is prohibited.

International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2(1), 1-20, January-March 2006 1

Information Technologyand Administrative Reform:

Will E-Government be Different?Kenneth Kraemer, University of California, Irvine, USA

John Leslie King, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

ABSTRACT

This article examines the theoretical ideal of information technology as aninstrument of administrative reform and examines the extent to which that idealhas been achieved in the United States. It takes a look at the findings from researchabout the use and impacts of information technology from the time of the mainframecomputer through the PC revolution to the current era of the Internet and e-government. It then concludes that information technology has never been aninstrument of administrative reform; rather, it has been used to reinforce existingadministrative and political arrangements. It assesses why this is the case anddraws conclusions about what should be expected with future applications ofinformation technologies — in the time after e-government. It concludes with adiscussion of the early evidence about newer applications for automated servicedelivery, 24/7 e-government, and e-democracy.

Keywords: administrative reform; business transformation; e-government;information technology; reinforcement of existing arrangements;United States

INTRODUCTIONThe past several decades have seen

many studies of the impacts of informa-tion technology (IT) in business organiza-tions and comparatively fewer studies in

government organizations. The concernsof researchers have been largely the sameacross both sectors — effects on effi-ciency and effectiveness, changes to or-ganizational structure, and impacts on

IDEA GROUP PUBLISHING

This paper appears in the publication, International Journal of Electronic Government Researchedited by Donald Norris and Patricia Fletcher © 2006, Idea Group Inc.

701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200, Hershey PA 17033-1240, USATel: 717/533-8845; Fax 717/533-8661; URL-http://www.idea-group.com

ITJ3107

2 International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2(1), 1-20, January-March 2006


work. Studies in government, however,have been unique in their concern withwhether IT is a catalyst or instrument ofadministrative reform.

We define administrative reform asefforts to bring about dramatic change ortransformation in government, such as amore responsive administrative structure,greater rationality and efficiency, or betterservice delivery to citizens. Toward theseends, governments historically have under-taken structural reforms, such as city-man-ager government; budget reforms, such asthe executive; performance and programbudgets; financial reforms, such as unifiedaccounting; personnel reforms, such asmerit-based employment and pay; andmany others. Computing has been viewedas an instrument of such reforms and alsoas a reform instrument, per se. Such in-struments are illustrated by urban infor-mation systems, integrated municipal in-formation systems, computer-based mod-els for policymaking, geographic informa-tion systems, and, most recently, e-gov-ernment. The rhetoric of these comput-ing-based reform efforts has been thatcomputing is a catalyst that can and shouldbe used to bring about dramatic changeand transformation in government (Foun-tain, 2002; Garson, 2004; Gasco, 2003;Reinermann, 1988; Weiner, 1969).

The question of whether computerswill bring significant organizational changeis nearly half a century old. In a classic1958 Harvard Business Review article,“Management in the 1980’s”, Leavitt andWhisler forecast that IT would replace thetraditional pyramidal hierarchy in organi-zations with a lean structure resembling an

hourglass, and productivity would soarthrough the elimination of most middlemanagers. Laudon’s (1974) path-break-ing Computers and Bureaucratic Reformraised the question of administrative re-form specifically with respect to local gov-ernment. IT generally is considered to havethe potential to bring about administrativereform. For example, Fountain (2002)says, “Technology is a catalyst for social,economic and political change at the lev-els of the individual, group, organizationand institution” (p. 45). Yet others haveargued that information technology doesnot tend to produce such reform and thatit is implausible that IT could cause suchchanges in the first place (King &Kraemer, 1985; Kraemer & King, 1986;Laudon, 1974).

The era of e-government, which canbe defined as the use of IT within govern-ment to achieve more efficient operations,better quality of service, and easy publicaccess to government information and ser-vices is now underway. The IT world thatsurrounds public administration in theUnited States has changed markedly.Technology diffusion within the society hasbeen pervasive, with personal computersand the Internet extending to the majorityof American households. Internet-basede-business and e-government servicesrapidly are connecting businesses, house-holds, and governments, thereby creatinga much richer and more subtle IT envi-ronment. By 2002, 67% of adults usingthe Internet had visited a government Website (57% a federal site; 54% a state site;and 42% a local site) (Dean, 2002).Nearly all federal agencies and most state



governments provide some information orservices on the Web (Fountain, 2001).The vast majority of city and county gov-ernments (95%) had Web sites in 2004(Norris, 2006), many offering non-finan-cial services (e.g., requests for services,government records, maps) and less than10% offering financial services (e.g., pay-ing taxes, utility bills, parking tickets, andlicenses/permits) (Norris, 2006; Norris &Moon, 2005). Thus, most of these ser-vices involve one-way, easy-to-implementinformation services; very few permit citi-zens to complete transactions with gov-ernment. Forrester Research (2000) esti-mated that by 2006, governments wouldreceive 15% of their total financial collec-tions over the Web.

Indeed, investment in informationtechnology at all government levels has in-creased, new capabilities are more diffusedthroughout government agencies, technicalexpertise is stronger and more widelyspread, and governments successfully haveinstitutionalized modern principles for man-agement of IT. If anything, there shouldbe greater readiness for administrative re-form from IT than ever before.

It seems likely that these changeswould be sufficient in order to trigger thelong expected administrative reforms, butMachiavelli’s admonition about the perilsof dramatic change is as relevant in the20th century as it was in the 15th cen-tury.1 This article argues that IT remains auseful instrument of incremental adminis-trative change, but it is no more likely tobring about administrative reform todaythan it was two decades ago. This articlerecapitulates four key propositions of the

reform hypothesis, discusses empiricalevidence related to each, assesses the re-form hypothesis in light of research results,raises relevant caveats, and concludes witha summary of the likely future relationshipbetween IT and administrative reform.

REFORM THROUGHINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The main problem with the claim thatinformation technology is an instrument ofadministrative reform is the lack of evi-dence to back it up.2 Faced with this, pro-ponents respond that the potential of ITto produce reform is thwarted because oftop management’s failures to distribute thetechnology efficiently, to empower lower-level staff, to re-engineer the organizationalong with computerization efforts, and tobecome hands-on knowledge executivesthemselves. Much of the benefit that ITcould bring to organizations is lost due topoor management, but this does not ex-plain the failure of the reform hypothesis.It merely shifts the argument onto differ-ent grounds.

The reform hypothesis is misguidedfundamentally, because it assumes thatorganizational elites want their organiza-tions to change and that they are willing touse IT to accomplish such change. Theempirical evidence suggests that IT hasbeen used most often to reinforce existingorganizational arrangements and to powerdistributions rather than to change them(Attawell & Rule, 1984; Danziger et al.,1982; Dutton & Kraemer, 1985; Duttonet al., 1987; Holden, 2003; King &Kraemer, 1986; Kling, 1974, 1980;Kraemer & King, 1979, 1987; Kraemer



& Perry, 1979; Laudon, 1974; Perry &Kraemer, 1979).

Based on a review of the researchon e-government (Fountain, 2001, 2002;Holden, 2003; Holden et al., 2003; Kayloret al., 2001; Layne & Lee, 2001; Moon,2002; Norris & Moon, 2005; Norris,2005, 2006), we believe that this funda-mental trend will continue into the foresee-able future. For example, Fountain (2001)initially assumed that the Internet “wouldoverwhelm organizational forms and indi-vidual resistance and … would lead to rapidorganizational change” (pp. x-xi). However,after researching the use of the Internet inU.S. federal agencies, Fountain (2002)concluded that “even the most innovativeuses of IT typically work at the surface ofoperations and boundary-spanning pro-cesses and are accepted because they leavethe deep structure of political relationshipsintact” (p. 45). Similarly, West (2004) con-cludes that “the e-government revolutionhas fallen short of its potential to transformservice delivery and public trust in govern-ment” (p. 15). Norris’ (2006) review ofmultiple e-government studies finds that“[l]ocal e-government … remains mainlyinformational. … nowhere is it achievingthe potential positive impacts claimed byits most ardent advocates. … e-govern-ment is not transformational, at least yet.… e-government, like IT and governmentbefore it, is incremental. … the trajectoryof local e-government that has been ob-served to date will likely continue into theforeseeable future”.

Decisions about IT use are made bytop managers and their direct subordi-nates. They use IT in the broad interests

of the organization, but those broad inter-ests usually intersect with their own inter-ests. They use IT to enhance the informa-tion available to them; to increase theircontrol over resources; to rationalize de-cisions to superiors, subordinates, and cli-ents; to provide visible deliverables withthe aid of the technology; and to symbol-ize professionalism and rationality in theirmanagement practices. These aims do notnecessarily work against the welfare of theorganization, simply because they workfor the welfare of managers. Yet, such aimsusually are not associated with and are fre-quently antithetical to administrative re-form.

The following sections examine fourkey components of the reform hypothesisand provide the contrasting results of re-search that call those components intoquestion. These empirical results aredrawn primarily from experiences in theUnited States, and it is possible that theexperiences in other countries have beenquite different. Nevertheless, given the tra-ditions of administrative reform in the U.S.and given the fact that the U.S. arguablyleads the world in the levels of govern-mental and private investment in IT, onewould expect the reform hypothesis to bestrongly corroborated in the U.S. context.The fact that it is not corroborated bearsconsideration.

IT AND ADMINISTRATIVEREFORM: THE U.S.EXPERIENCE

U.S. public organizations have beenapplying IT unabated since digital com-puters were first introduced in the early



1950s. Picking only one era for closerexamination — the mid to late 1980s —it is possible to see the magnitude of U.S.investment in the technology. Federalagencies had more than 20,000 main-frames and minicomputers and, even inthose early days of the microcomputer, hadmore than 200,000 installed. Federalagencies alone employed more than100,000 IT specialists and spent morethan $15 billion annually on computeriza-tion (GSA, 1986; OTA, 1985). State andlocal governments had well over 3,000mainframes and minicomputers and morethan 40,000 microcomputers, employed35,000 IT specialists, and spent morethan $8 billion annually on IT (Caudle &Marchand, 1989; Kraemer et al., 1986;NASIS, 1989). That level of investmenthas grown substantially in the years since.3In short, U.S. public administration hasbeen an enthusiastic user of IT.

U.S. public administration also hasbeen a fertile ground for research into theextent and effects of IT use (Bretchsneider,1990; Caudle, 1990; Caudle &Marchand, 1989; Danziger & Kraemer,1986; Danziger et al., 1982; Dutton &Kraemer, 1978; Dutton & Guthrie, 1991;Fountain, 2002; George & King, 1991;Holden, 2003; Kling, 1980; Kraemer &King, 1986). The empirical findings aresomewhat fragmented and sometimes con-tradictory, but nevertheless, they can bebrought together for how they bear on thefollowing four reform propositions:

• Computers have the potential to reformpublic administrations and their relationswith their environments.

• Information technology can change or-ganizational structures and, thus, is apowerful tool for reform.

• Properly used, information technologywill be beneficial for administrators,staff, citizens, and public administrationas a whole.

• The potential benefits from informationtechnology are under-realized due to alack of managerial understanding ofwhat the technology can do and an un-willingness of managers to pursue thepotential of the technology when theydo understand it.

The following four sections examineeach proposition in turn.

Reform Proposition 1. Computers havethe potential to reform publicadministrations and their relations withtheir environments.

A good example of this was Gibsonand Hammer’s (1985) claim that today’sapplications of information technology candramatically change the way individuals,functional units, and whole organizationscarry out their tasks. As a case in point,computer technology was seen as an in-strument of administrative reform at thefederal level in projects of the U.S. De-partment of Health, Education and Wel-fare and in many state and local govern-ments, as well, in the mid- and late 1970s(Kling, 1980). These were efforts to cre-ate Information and Referral (I&R) sys-tems in order to consolidate the many pub-lic and private local agencies that servedlarge urban areas. I&R systems were be-



lieved to help by sharing information aboutclients, needs, resources, and performanceamong all participating agencies, improv-ing both service delivery to clients and theallocation of social service resources.Additionally, such systems might facilitateadministrative consolidation, central bud-geting, and performance monitoring inways that administrative reforms had failedto accomplish. Despite huge investments,however, this strategy for services inte-gration failed, because the local social ser-vice agencies failed to see the benefits tothem from the reforms. The I&R systemshad no power to bring about services in-tegration indirectly, and they expired alongwith the whole reform effort.

IT can help effect some reforms,such as centralization of budgeting andaccounting systems that allow greater citi-zen and elected official control over gov-ernment resources (Kraemer et al., 1981).Computerization often required recalci-trant finance directors and departmentheads to reveal long-established practicesthat did not meet the expectations of pro-fessional financial controls. Also, second-generation financial automation broughtsophisticated capabilities for cost account-ing and billing on a fee-for-service basis,which helped government managers toenact new means of enhancing revenuesin the face of fiscal limitations set by citi-zen referenda. Administrative practices,such as centralized accounting and bud-geting and services integration, might havefailed in the face of organizational growthand decentralization if not for applicationof IT, but IT was not the cause of suchreforms. They were grounded in the early

20th-century efforts to increase profes-sionalism in government management, and,at best, IT was an enabler of these re-forms.

Finding on Reform Proposition 1: Ex-perience with information technologyand administrative reform has shown thetechnology to be useful in some casesof administrative reform but only incases where expectations for reform arealready well established. IT applicationdoes not cause reform and cannot en-courage it where the political will topursue the reform does not exist.

Reform Proposition 2. Informationtechnology can change organizationalstructures and, thus, is a powerful toolfor reform.

This proposition is grounded in thebelief that information technology can im-pact directly the data structures of publicadministration, enforcing or relaxing tra-ditional hierarchical forms. Mainframe-based computerization was seen as rein-forcing hierarchical organizational struc-tures by consolidating data and expertise,while microcomputers were seen as fa-cilitating organizational decentralizationthrough distribution of data and expertisethroughout government.

The empirical evidence suggests thatthe main impact of IT application has beento reinforce existing structures of commu-nication, authority, and power in organi-zations, whether centralized or decentral-ized (Attewell & Rule, 1984; Danziger etal., 1982; Dutton & Kraemer, 1977,



1978; George & King, 1991; King, 1983;Kraemer, 1980; Laudon, 1974;Pinsonneault, 1990; Pinsonneault &Kraemer, 1997, 2002; Robey, 1981).This finding is consistent in research oncomputerization in both city and federalagencies. In the case of local governments,it is true regardless of the form of govern-ment. Computerization in city managergovernments reinforces the power andcontrol of the professional manager; instrong mayor governments, it reinforcesthe elected mayor; in commission govern-ments, it reinforces the power of individualcommissioners.

The reform proponents argue thatthese findings are based mainly on the eraof centralized mainframe computing. Yet,the research shows that even in the main-frame era, decentralized government or-ganizations had decentralized mainframecomputing arrangements (King, 1983).Moreover, even when focused on micro-computers, the data do not support theproposition (Kraemer et al., 1986;Kraemer et al., 1992). Microcomputershave been used extensively for local textprocessing and other functions that do notsupport core government functions. To theextent that microcomputers do relate tocore functions, it is through their use asintelligent terminals providing user accessto centralized servers that support thelarge-scale processing tasks central to thegovernment’s operations.

Even if IT itself is indifferent topower distribution, senior organizationalleaders are not. Recent research suggeststhat use of IT is correlated with both in-creases and decreases in the number of

middle managers in organizations, but thechanges are contingent on particular or-ganizational conditions that influence theviews of senior leadership (Klatsky, 1970;Pinsonneault, 1990; Pinsonneault &Kraemer, 1997). For example, whenmiddle managers in government organi-zations control IT deployment decisions,they tend to use the technology to increasetheir numbers. In contrast, when top man-agers are in control, they tend to use thetechnology to reduce the number of middlemanagers, especially when environmentaltriggers such as fiscal stress stimulate theneed for change (Pinsonneault & Kraemer,2002).

IT has had little discernible effect onorganization structure and seems to yieldsomewhat greater centralization in alreadycentralized organizations in support of ex-isting organizational arrangements. Otherorganizational structures also appear to becompatible with IT application, includingmatrix organizations involving dual author-ity arrangements. There is no good evi-dence to support or refute this idea in gov-ernment organizations, but one would as-sume that IT application in the context ofthese newer organizational forms alsowould be used to reinforce those struc-tures; it would not change them (Vitalari,1988).

Finding on Reform Proposition 2: ITapplication has brought relatively littlechange to organization structures andseems to reinforce existing structures.

Reform Proposition 3. Properly used,information technology will be



beneficial for administrators, staff,citizens, and public administration asa whole.

Proponents of this proposition arguethat information technology has the po-tential to decentralize administration, re-integrate and enhance work life, open ac-cess to data within the government andwith citizens outside, and rationalize deci-sion making on complex problems throughcomputerized modeling. Such changes, itis hoped, will further democratize govern-ment by bringing citizens more fully intoplanning and administration activities of thegovernment itself, especially in areas ofcitizen concern.

There is little dispute that IT is ben-eficial to the organizations that use it, es-pecially in the area of productivity(Jorgensen et al., 2003; Lee & Perry,1998; Lehr & Lichtenberg, 1998). In thecase of government, such benefits comemainly from long-standing applications tostructured and repetitive tasks at the coreof government operations: the day-to-day,transaction-oriented information process-ing of administrative agencies concernedwith producing bills, recording payments,paying vendors and employees, record-ing public documents, answering citizeninquiries, and so forth (Danziger &Kraemer, 1986). These applications meetreal needs of public agencies and repre-sent substantial investments. They are notbold, innovative moves to reform publicagencies; they simply are useful adapta-tions of the technology in order to improveadministrative performance. They rein-force the conservative values of govern-

mental efficiency and social control inher-ent in U.S. governments for decades.However, they do not serve the needs ofspecial citizen groups, such as the poor,the homeless, the aged, or the handicapped(Kraemer & Kling, 1985).

There have been relatively few ex-amples of IT applications aimed atbroader, more liberal citizen service pro-vision. An interesting example is SantaMonica, California’s PEN system, a pub-lic information utility designed to provideinformation, electronic mail, andconferencing among citizens and the citygovernment through networked microcom-puters located in public places and via re-mote links from people in their workplacesand homes. In many ways, the PEN sys-tem did achieve its goals, but it did so inthe context of a city with legendary biasesof political liberalism. In their case studyof the PEN system, Dutton and Guthrie(1991) describe it as “reinforcing the val-ues and interests of a liberal democraticcommunity supportive of citizen partici-pation” (p. 295). The technology wasused to reinforce community values (in thiscase, liberal democratic values), not toreform them.4 Once again, the empiricalevidence suggests that those who controlIT deployment and application determinewhose interests are served by the tech-nology.

Finding on Reform Proposition 3: Thebenefits of information technology havenot been distributed evenly within gov-ernment organizational functions; theprimary beneficiaries have been func-tions favored by the dominant political-



administrative coalitions in public ad-ministrations and not those of technicalelites, middle managers, clerical staff,or ordinary citizens.5

Reform Proposition 4. The potentialbenefits from information technologyare underrealized due to a lack ofmanagerial understanding of what thetechnology can do and an unwillingnessof managers to pursue the potential ofthe technology when they dounderstand it.

There is no question that some man-agers are more effective than others atapplying IT successfully, but this has littleto do with the reform hypothesis. Theproposition states that managers lack theunderstanding necessary to motivate ap-plication of IT. In fact, IT is being appliedwidely in government with the full approvalof all levels of the managerial hierarchy.Moreover, governments withprofessionalized administrations actuallyare more likely to adopt and apply IT(Danziger et al., 1982; Dutton &Kraemer, 1977). The issue is not thatmanagers fail to understand the potentialof IT; they understand that potential per-fectly well when it comes to their own in-terests, and they exploit it aggressively inthe pursuit of those interests. Those inter-ests are in line with more traditional andconservative values of government in theU.S., as noted previously. In the occa-sional instances in which a governmentorganization pursues a different politicalagenda, such as in Santa Monica, IT isapplied toward those ends.

Findings on Reform Proposition 4:Government managers have a goodsense of the potential uses of IT in theirown interests, and in cases where theirinterests coincide with government in-terests, they push IT application ag-gressively.

PROBLEM WITH THEREFORM HYPOTHESIS

The U.S. experience with IT in gov-ernment fails to support the reform hypoth-esis. The benefits of IT use are focusedlargely on administrative efficiency and noton reform of administrative organization,practices, or behavior. Two underlyingassumptions govern the reform hypothesis,as it has been articulated, that reform isrequired in government and that IT canbe used to carry out such reforms. Bothof these assumptions are questionable.

The reform hypothesis suggests thatreform is necessary without specifyingwhy. Government organizations may beflawed and subject to improvement, butthat does not mean that they are doing apoor job at their objectives. Most govern-ment organizations are bureaucracies withhierarchically organized distributions of au-thority, resources, and responsibility flow-ing downward to work units and informa-tion about organizational performance flow-ing back upward as a means of control.Most government managers want to keeporganizations that way for good reasons.The bureaucratic form is highly refined frommany decades of continuous study andimprovement. It has evolved into a com-prehensive set of conventions that workquite well at doing complicated tasks with



reasonable performance on a sustainedbasis over many years. Government man-agers understand this form of organiza-tion, which makes them experts at using itto accomplish governmental objectives.None of this suggests that managers areaverse to performance improvements; in-deed, the U.S. research clearly showssenior government managers are stronglysupportive of efforts to improve efficiency,productivity, and organizational control.What about the current system is broken?The reform hypothesis does not say.

IT application in the U.S. actually fitsthe agenda of improved government withinthe established bureaucratic model. Forexample, computerization in financial sys-tems provides new information and con-trol mechanisms simultaneously to seniorexecutives, central financial managers, anddepartment heads. Subordinates usingsuch systems might find themselves undergreater financial surveillance from theirsupervisors, but they also gain greatercontrol over the details of their budgets,especially with respect to patterns ofspending through real time, and accurateinformation about current balances. Thesesystems allow managers at any level toenact immediate and across-the-boardchanges affecting subordinates, such as theelimination of funds for all open positions,enactment of budget cuts, assignment ofoverhead expenses, and so forth (Kraemeret al., 1981). This effect of IT use is notpower-neutral; it reinforces the generalhierarchical structure of bureaucratic or-ganization even while giving managers ateach level greater leverage over the op-erations below.

Even in cases where there are goodreasons to reform government, the appli-cation of IT has a poor record as a leverfor change. The short-run impacts of ITuse have been far less pervasive and dra-matic than forecast. Orientations, tasks,and interactions among managers andworkers might change, but the changes instandard operating procedures tend to bemodest. It is more common that IT is madeto conform to existing behavior and prac-tice than to change such a practice. Casestudies covering 30 years of computing incities (Kraemer et al., 1986) and federalagencies (Westin & Laudon, 1986) indi-cate that reform has been limited mainlyto the information processing functionwithin organizations and not to the broaderaspects of organizations. The indirect in-fluence of information technology toachieve genuine reform within the politicaladministrative system is far less powerfulthan the direct intervention of executive,legislative, or judicial change. In theory,IT might lead to new administrative struc-tures; in practice, it does not, and it prob-ably should not.

IMPLICATIONSAND CONCLUSION

Proponents of the reform hypothesismight respond to the foregoing analysiswith the objection that much of the evi-dence presented in the analysis is fromstudies of government IT application priorto the 1990s, when the Internet became amajor force. The potential of the Internetto alter the prospects of e-governmentdramatically can be inferred from the trans-formation of business organizations using



IT and especially the Internet during andafter the dot.com boom. This is a fair ob-servation and deserves careful response.

It is true that much of the researchcited in the previous arguments was donein the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and thatimportant changes in technology occurredbetween the 1990s and the present. Nev-ertheless, the studies cited were careful toaccount for the actual changes that mightbe associated with the application of ITto specific tasks in government organiza-tions and not to changes that were spe-cific to particular technologies. The reformhypothesis was an explicit focus of muchof this research, and every effort wasmade to find evidence for the hypothesis.The most systematic of these studies re-futed the hypothesis in fundamental waysthat are relevant not only for the 30-yearperiod of the studies but more generallyinto the 1990s and today. More impor-tant, studies done since the 1990s (Foun-tain, 2001, 2002; Holden, 2003; Holdenet al., 2003; Kaylor et al., 2001; Moon,2002; Norris, 2005, 2006) corroboratethe basic findings of the earlier work —IT has not reformed or transformed gov-ernment administration. The facts of to-day do not necessarily dictate the realityof tomorrow, but in the absence of evi-dence to the contrary, it is safe to assumethat IT use will not result in the reformsthat proponents of the reform hypothesisclaim.

The role of the Internet bears atten-tion, because the Internet (by which webroadly refer to computer networking) isa fundamental enabling component of e-government. Indeed, one might argue that

the experience of the pre-Internet periodis irrelevant to e-government, becausewithout the Internet there would be no e-government. Again, the focus of this ar-ticle is not on the broad question ofwhether IT affects government organiza-tions; it is on the narrower question ofwhether IT use is likely to result in gov-ernment reform. The Internet permits com-puters to communicate with each otherand humans to communicate with com-puters and with each other via comput-ers. It affects how tasks can be done andhow work can be organized, but that doesnot mean that those tasks or the nature ofthe work itself will be altered in funda-mental ways.

Use of IT has dramatically affectedmany business organizations and sectorsin the past decade. Some business orga-nizations and even whole sectors of busi-ness have undergone radical change sincethe Internet arrived. IT has brought majorproductivity gains to business organizations(Jorgensen et al., 2003), and, in mostcases, those gains are specifically tied tochanges in the ways organizations do busi-ness (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2003). A goodexample is seen in the personal computerindustry (Dedrick & Kraemer, 2005).Competitive market forces required firmsto change the organization of their activi-ties from vertical, supply-driven modelsto virtual, demand-driven models In or-der to better match supply and demandand to avoid the cycles of excess inven-tory and product shortages that hadplagued PC companies. Dell Computerpioneered this change, which happenedto fit well with the capabilities of the



Internet, and soon was copied as it tookmarket share from the other vendors. PCmakers reorganized their activities aroundinformation processes — order manage-ment, planning and coordination, and cus-tomer relationship management. This al-lowed them to substitute information forinventory and to respond to market sig-nals more quickly and more effectively. ITdid not directly create new value in thePC industry; it allowed information pro-cesses to be redefined in ways that im-proved efficiency and added value to thecustomer.

While this dramatic example is com-pelling, it is important to note that the cata-lyst of industry change was a company —Dell Computer — that was a relative new-comer to an industry that already had beendestabilized by eroding profitability andintense competition. Dell did not so muchreform the PC industry as create an en-tirely new and superior model for the in-dustry. Despite considerable effort andinvestment, no other personal computercompany yet has been able to match Dell’sefficiency (Dedrick & Kraemer, 2005).Other dramatic examples of businesschange associated with IT use, such asWal-Mart, Amazon.com, eBay, andGoogle, show a similar pattern of forcingdramatic rethinking of the whole businessenterprise.

One must be careful in drawing con-clusions from such studies and applyingthem to government. The overall effectsof IT on business are more complicatedthan they might first appear. WhileAmazon.com, eBay, and Google are stun-ning examples of the dot.com era, many

companies that tried to change their in-dustries or to create new industries failedcompletely and disappeared when thedot.com boom went bust. In addition,business and government organizationsexhibit fundamental differences that influ-ence the outcomes of IT use. Few busi-ness organizations have their tasks andwork specified under statute or executiveorder; businesses, unlike governments, arefree to decide what things to do and howto do them. Business organizations aredriven mainly by market forces, whichencourage radical innovation and can becharacterized by Schumpeter’s gales ofcreative destruction. Government organi-zations, in contrast, are driven by politi-cal/institutional forces that are not and can-not be subjected to destructive changeswithout severe consequences for theirconstituents.

This does not mean that governmentshave little to learn from the changes seenin the business world. Examples frombusiness prove that even well-establishedproduction systems can be changed dra-matically to produce results that are ofbenefit to consumers. At minimum, theseexamples provide hope that governmentservices can be improved in ways thatbring benefits to citizens through carefulapplication of IT. In order for that to hap-pen, however, the leadership of govern-ment organizations must establish thebroader goals of the reform efforts, de-velop new models of electronic gover-nance and electronic service delivery, andthen bring IT carefully into consideration.Today’s e-government initiatives are partof a broader government reform agenda



that emphasizes customer service andgreater responsiveness to citizens (Execu-tive Office of the President, 2003; Na-tional Performance Review, 1993). If this,indeed, is the will of the existing govern-mental power structure, IT might play arole in the reform. But that is not a fore-gone conclusion, and what actually hap-pens remains to be seen.

A more difficult challenge arising fromthe arguments in this article is the questionof what practitioners, researchers, andothers who are interested in e-governmentshould do in response to this assessment.One might conclude that e-government isa mere passing fad that will flare and thenfade, as many other management fads havein the past (e.g., management by objec-tives or zero-base budgeting). This wouldbe overreaching. The argument here is acautionary note about e-government andsignificant government reform. It is not acriticism of e-government, per se, nor is ita claim that e-government will fail to pro-duce significant long-term changes in thenature and conduct of government. Re-turning to business organizations, there isconsiderable evidence to suggest that pro-found transformations in whole sectorshave occurred over time through the useof IT. Yates’ (2005) studies of IT in therise of system approaches in Americanmanagement between 1860 and 1920 andof the remaking of the U.S. insurance in-dustry in the early 20th century provideelegant proof of the transforming powerof IT enablement. King and Lyytinen’s(2005) study of transformation in the au-tomobile industry in the 20th century pro-vides insights about the role of IT in re-

shaping industrial ecologies. There is goodreason to believe that e-government ini-tiatives might affect government dramati-cally over the coming decades.

The question of whether expectationsfor e-government are realized or dasheddepends on what those expectations are.This article suggests that claims that e-gov-ernment will fundamentally alter govern-mental structure, performance, citizen en-gagement, and so on (Executive Office ofthe President, 2003; National Perfor-mance Review, 1993) are likely to bedashed, given that IT in and of itself con-sistently has proven to have little bearingon those kinds of government reforms. ITis a general-purpose engine that can en-able reform efforts, but unless the otherfactors required for reform are in place,the role of IT is immaterial. IT also hasbeen used to thwart reform efforts, a factthat many who support the reform hypoth-esis overlook. True reform begins andends with political will, and along the way,IT can play myriad roles.

Perhaps most important for e-gov-ernment practice and research, nothing inthis argument refutes the hope that IT willimprove government operations and en-able new government services. E-govern-ment, at least in principle, offers a greatdeal to government organizations facingincreasing demands, shrinking resources,and, in many cases, more fractionatedpolitical climates. IT can be used to makeimportant marginal improvements in effi-ciency and effectiveness and, in somecases, to create truly innovative govern-ment responses to challenges. IT hasbrought such benefits to many organiza-



tions and many sectors, and there is noth-ing to preclude government organizationsfrom enjoying such payoffs from thought-ful IT investment. A challenging agenda fore-government practice and research re-mains, even if government reform is re-moved from the agenda.

Another point that is seldom men-tioned in the reform discussion might beadded to the agenda: the implications ofe-government in changing the political dy-namics whereby government leaders areelected and appointed. As was pointedout in a 1987 study of the use of com-puter models in the federal government,IT had failed conspicuously to alter fun-damental dimensions of the federated gov-ernmental apparatus of the United States,but the same could not be said for the pro-cesses of political mobilization (Kraemeret al., 1987). The most recent U.S. presi-dential election was replete with examplesof the ways in which IT can alter politicalbalances and fortunes, including theInternet-based fundraising drives that al-lowed Democratic campaign financing tokeep up with Republican financing and theeffects of Weblogs and Internet-basednews sites covering the campaign on themobilization of public opinion, to the con-troversies regarding electronic voting(Nardi et al., 2004a, 2004b). It is in someways fitting that the most significant im-pacts of IT on government thus far havebeen in the most political dimensions ofgovernment — the determination of whogoverns. This condition is likely to persistand is highly relevant to both practice andresearch in the realm of e-government.

REFERENCESAttewell, P., & Rule, J. (1984). Comput-

ing in organizations: What we know andwhat we don’t know. Communica-tions of the ACM, 27(12), 1184-1192.

Bretschneider, S. (1990). Managementinformation systems in public and pri-vate organizations: An empirical test.Public Administration Review, 50(5),536-545.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2003,January 27). The catalytic computer:Information technology, enterprisetransformation, and business perfor-mance. Unpublished manuscript.

Caudle, S. L. (1990). Managing informa-tion resources in state government.Public Administration Review, 50(5),515-524.

Caudle, S. L., & Marchand, D. A.(1989). Managing information re-sources: New directions in state gov-ernment. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Uni-versity.

Danziger, J. N., Dutton, W. H., Kling, R.,& Kraemer, K. L. (1982). Comput-ers and politics. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Danziger, J. N., &. Kraemer, K. L.(1986). People and computers. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Dean, J. (2002). E-government hits themainstream survey says.GovExec.com. Retrieved February26, 2002, from http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0202/022602j1.htm

Dedrick, J., & Kraemer, K. L. (2005).The impacts of IT on firm and industrystructure: The personal computer indus-



try. California Management Review,47(3), 122-142.

Dutton, W. H., Blumler, J. G., & Kraemer,K. L. (1987). Wired cities: Shapingthe future of communications. Bos-ton: G.K. Hall.

Dutton, W. H., & Guthrie, K. (1991). Anecology of games: The political con-struction of Santa Monica’s public elec-tronic network. Informatization in thePublic Sector, 1(4), 279-301.

Dutton, W. H., & Kraemer, K. L. (1977).Technology and urban management:The power payoffs of computing. Ad-ministration and Society, 9(3), 304-340.

Dutton, W. H., & Kraemer, K. L. (1978).Management utilization of computers inAmerican local governments. Commu-nications of the ACM, 21(3), 206-218.

Dutton, W. H., & Kraemer, K. L. (1985).Modeling as negotiating: The politi-cal dynamics of computer models inthe policy process. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing.

Executive Office of the President. (2003,April). E-government strategy:Implementing the president’s man-agement agenda for e-government.Washington, DC: EOP.

Forman, M. (2003, May 12). Memoran-dum for the chief information officersRe: procedures for requesting fundsfrom the e-government fund. Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB).

Forrester Research. (2000, August 30).Sizing U.S. e-government. Cam-bridge, MA: Forrester.

Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the vir-

tual state: Information technologyand institutional change. Washington,DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Fountain, J. E. (2002). Information, in-stitutions and governance. Cam-bridge: Harvard University.

Garson, G. D. (2004). The promise of digi-tal government. In A. Pavlichev, & G.D. Garson (Eds.), Digital governmentprinciples and best practices (pp. 2-15). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publish-ing.

Gasco, M. (2003). New technologies andinstitutional change in public adminis-tration. Social Science Computer Re-view, 21(1), 6-14.

General Services Administration (GSA).(1986). Automatic data processinginventory. Washington, DC: GeneralServices Administration.

George, J. F., & King, J. L. (1991). Ex-amining the computing and centraliza-tion debate. Communications of theACM, 34(7), 63-72.

Gibson, C. F., & Hammer, M. (1985).Now that the dust has settled: A clearview of the terrain. Indications, 2(5),5-12.

Gronlund, A. (2003). Emerging electronicinfrastructures: Exploring democraticcomponents. Social Science Com-puter Review, 21(1), 55-72.

Holden, S. H. (2003). The evolution ofinformation technology management atthe federal level: Implications for pub-lic administration. In G. D. Garson (Ed.),Public information technology:Policy and management issues (pp.53-73). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub-lishing.



Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher,P. D. (2003). Electronic government atthe local level: Progress to date and fu-ture issues. Public Productivity andManagement Review, 26(3), 1-20.

Jorgensen, D. W., Ho, M. S., & Stiroh,K. J. (2003, January 27). Lessons fromthe US growth resurgence. In Proceed-ings of the First International Con-ference on the Economic and SocialImplications of Information Technol-ogy (pp. 453-470), Washington, DC.

Kaylor, C. H., Deshazo, R., & Van Eck,D. (2001). Gauging e-government: Areport on implementing services amongAmerican cities. Government Infor-mation Quarterly, 18(4), 293-307.

King, J. L. (1983). Centralized vs. de-centralized computing: Organizationalconsiderations and management op-tions. ACM Computing Surveys,15(4), 319-345.

King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1985).The dynamics of computing. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1986).The dynamics of change in computinguse: A theoretical framework. Comput-ers Environment and Urban Systems,11(1/2), 5-25.

King, J. L., & Lyytinen, K. (2005). Auto-motive informatics: Information technol-ogy and enterprise transformation in theautomobile industry. In W. H. Dutton,B. Kahin, R. O’Callaghan, & A. W.Wychoff (Eds.), Transforming enter-prise (pp. 283-312). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Klatzky, S. R. (1970). Automation, sizeand the locus of decision making: The

cascade effect. Journal of Business,43(2), 141-151.

Kling, R. (1974). Automated welfare cli-ent tracking and service integration.Communications of the ACM, 21(6),484-493.

Kling, R. (1980). Social analyses of com-puting: Theoretical perspectives in re-cent empirical research. ComputingSurveys, 12(1), 61-110.

Kraemer, K. L. (1980). Computers, in-formation and power in local govern-ments. In A. Mowshowitz (Ed.), Hu-man choice and computers, 2 (pp.213-235). New York: North-HollandPublishing.

Kraemer, K. L., Dickhoven, S., Tierney,S. F., & King, J. L. (1987). Datawars:The politics of modeling in federalpolicymaking. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Kraemer, K. L., Dutton, W. H., &Northrop, A. (1981). The manage-ment of information systems. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (1979). Arequiem for USAC. Policy Analysis,5(3), 313-349.

Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (1986).Computing and public organizations.Public Administration Review, 46(6),488-496.

Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (1987).Computers and the Constitution: A help-ful, harmful, or harmless relationship?Public Administration Review, 47(1),93-105.

Kraemer, K. L., King, J. L., Dunkle, D.,Lane, J. P., & George, J. F. (1986).The future of information systems in



local governments. Irvine, CA: Uni-versity of California, Irvine.

Kraemer, K. L., King, J. L., Dunkle, D.,& Perry, J. L. (1992). Distributablecomputing and organizational de-mocratization: A test of conventionalwisdom. Irvine, CA: University of Cali-fornia, Irvine.

Kraemer, K. L., & Kling, R. (1985). Thepolitical character of computerization inservice organizations: Citizen interestsor bureaucratic control. Computersand the Social Sciences, 1(2), 77-89.

Kraemer, K. L., & Perry, J. L. (1979).The federal push to bring computerapplications to local governments. Pub-lic Administration Review, 39(3),260-270.

Laudon, K. (1974). Computers and bu-reaucratic reform. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developingfully functional e-government: A fourstage model. Government Informa-tion Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.

Leavitt, H. J., & Whisler, T. L. (1958).Management in the 1980s. HarvardBusiness Review, 36(6), 41-48.

Lee, G., & Perry, J. L. (1998). Are com-puters boosting productivity? A testof the paradox in state governments(Working Paper). Irvine, CA: Univer-sity of California, Irvine.

Lehr, W., & Lichtenberg, F. R. (1998).Computer use and productivity growthin US federal government agencies,1987-1992. The Journal of IndustrialEconomics, 46(2), 257-279.

Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities:

Rhetoric or reality. Public Administra-tion Review, 62(4), 424-433.

Nardi, B., Schiano, D., & Gumbrecht, M.(2004a). Blogging as social activity, or,would you let 900 million people readyour diary? In Proceedings of the Con-ference on Computer-Supported Co-operative Work (pp. 222-228). NewYork: ACM Press.

Nardi, B., Schiano, D., Gumbrecht, M.,& Swartz, L. (2004b). Why we blog.Communications of the AmericanAssociation for Computing Machin-ery, 47(12), 41.

National Association for State Informa-tion Systems (NASIS). (1989). Infor-mation systems technology in stategovernment. Lexington, KY: Councilof State Governments.

National Performance Review. (1993).From red tape to results: Creating agovernment that works better andcosts less, and reengineering throughinformation technology (accompany-ing report of the NPR). Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Norris, D. F. (2005). Electronic democ-racy at the American grassroots. Inter-national Journal of Electronic Gov-ernment Research, 1(3), 1-14.

Norris, D. F. (forthcoming). Electronicgovernment at the American grassroots:The state of the practice. In A. V.Anttiroiko, & M. Malkia (Eds.), En-cyclopedia of digital government.Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005).Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare? Public Admin-istration Review, 65(1), 64-75.



Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).(1985). Automation of America’s of-fices. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.

Perry, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1979).Technological innovation in Ameri-can local governments. New York:Pergamon.

Pinsonneault, A. (1990). The impact ofinformation technology on themiddle management workforce: Anempirical investigation. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Cali-fornia Irvine, Irvine, CA.

Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L.(1997). Middle managementdownsizing: An empirical investigationof the impact of information technol-ogy. Management Science, 43(5),659-679.

Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L.(2002). Information technology andmiddle management downsizing: A taleof two cities. Organization Science,13(2), 191-208.

Reinermann, H. (1988). Vor einer“ v e r w a l t u n g s r e f o r m ? ”Informationstechnisch motivieerte zieleund “systemkonzepte” derverwaltungspolitik. In H. Reinermann,H. Fiedler, K. Grimmer, K. Lenk, &R. Traunmuller (Eds.), Neueinformationstechniken neueverwaltungsstruckturen? (pp. 38-50). Heidelberg, Germany: R.V.Decker & C.F. Muller.

Robey, D. (1981). Computers, informa-tion systems and organizational struc-ture. Communications of the ACM,24(10), 679-687.

Vitalari, N. (1988). The impact of infor-

mation technology on organizationaldesign and the emergence of the dis-tributed organization. Irvine, CA:University of California Irvine.

Weiner, M. E. (1969). Service: The ob-jective of municipal information sys-tems. Storrs, CT: University of Con-necticut.

West, D. M. (2004). E-government andthe transformation of service deliveryand citizen attitudes. Public Adminis-tration Review, 64(1), 15-27.

Westin, A., & Laudon, K. (1986). Infor-mation technology and the SocialSecurity Administration: 1935-1990(Research Monograph). Washington,DC: Office of Technology Assessment.

Yates, J. (2005). Structuring the infor-mation age: Life insurance and in-formation technology in the 20thcentury. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press.

ENDNOTES1 The exact quote from Niccolo

Machiavelli’s The Prince, which youcan find at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niccolo_machiavelli.html, is as follows: “There is nothingmore difficult to take in hand, moreperilous to conduct, or more uncertainin its success, than to take the lead inthe introduction of a new order ofthings”.

2 This literature spans more than 30 yearsand is illustrated by the National Per-formance Review of 1993. From RedTape to Results: Creating a Govern-ment that works Better and CostsLess, and Reengineering through In-



formation Technology (accompany-ing report of the NPR). Washington,DC: US Government Printing Office.

3 By 2002, federal government spend-ing for IT was $45 billion annually, with$45 million set aside for e-governmentprojects, increasing to $150 million by2006 (Forman, 2003).

4 In a recent analysis of e-democracy infour municipalities in Sweden, Gronlund(2003) concluded that the various e-democracy initiatives reinforced thecurrent procedures of formal politics bycomplementing them with increased di-rect communication with citizens ratherthan citizen participation and influence.Moreover, he concluded that thisshould be seen as a measure designedto reinforce the politicians’ position

rather than the citizens’, as the agendawas set by the politicians.

5 In every government, there is a coali-tion of political and administrative lead-ers who have broad power and con-trol over the organization. In simplestterms, this might be the city managerand city council in a council-managerform of government, the commission-ers and CAO in the commission formof government, and the mayor and othertop elected officials in the strong mayorform of government. These coalitionssometimes are referred to as theorganization’s power structure andmight well include others lower downin the hierarchy. This explanation issimilar to Laudon (1974) and Danzigeret al. (1982).

Kenneth L. Kraemer is professor of management and computer science in thePaul Merage School of Business and the Donald Bren School of Information andComputer Science; is director of the Center for Research on InformationTechnology and Organizations and the Sloan Center for the Personal ComputingIndustry; and holds the Taco Bell Chair in IT for Management, all at the Universityof California, Irvine. His research spans 38 years in information technology:organizational, social and political implications, national policy for productionand use, contributions to economic growth, and technology’s role in developingcountries. Professor Kraemer has conducted research in 12 Asia-Pacific countries,including recent extensions to Brazil, Mexico, and China; he is completing astudy of globalization of the Internet and e-commerce with researchers from 10countries; and he is currently engaged in study of the globalization of knowledgework in the computer industry. Books include Computers and Politics, People andComputers, and Datawars (Columbia University Press: 1982, 1985, 1987,respectively); Modeling as Negotiating (Ablex: 1985); Wired Cities (1987);Managing Information Systems (Josey-Bass: 1989); The Information Systems ResearchChallenge (Harvard: 1991); Asia’s Computer Challenge (Oxford: 1998; available



in Chinese); and Global E-Commerce (Cambridge, forthcoming). He holds aBArch degree from the University of Notre Dame, 1959, a master’s in city andregional planning, 1964, and a master’s, 1965, and PhD, 1967, both in publicpolicy and management from the University of Southern California.

John Leslie King is dean and professor in the School of Information at theUniversity of Michigan. His research concerns the development of high-levelrequirements for information systems design and implementation ininstitutionalized production sectors, such as common carrier communications,logistics and transport, health care, criminal courts, electric power, and electroniccommerce. He has authored more than 150 books and scholarly papers from hisresearch. Dr. King served as editor-in-chief of the INFORMS journal InformationSystems Research from 1993-1998, and served as Marvin Bower Fellow andvisiting professor at the Harvard Business School in 1990. From 1980-2000 hewas professor of information and computer science and management at theUniversity of California, Irvine. He holds a PhD in administration from UCI.

information technology and administrative reform...tion technology (it) in business organiza-tions...

Documents